Bayonets are not popular with today’s military. It remains part of basic training but the energy invested in teaching it is a tiny fraction of time spent on shooting. The simple reasoning is that the farther away from the enemy you kill him, the less able he is to kill you, the less chaos you must contend with, the more freedom of movement you are permitted, the more control you have over your troops. Control over the movement and action of troops is a common way of understanding leadership.
Developments
In the last ten years, the Army and Marine Corps have ramped up the unarmed combat training of their troops with similar but distinct martial arts programs. They train in grappling, unarmed striking, knife-fighting, improvised weapons, and with the rifle and bayonet. The Marine Corps Martial Arts School of Excellence (MASE) actually participated in the design of the new K-Bar bayonet. It is a masterpiece of purpose, functionality, and simplicity (I would love to go into greater detail as to why but it’s off-topic). It is now standard-issue, however you will be hard pressed to find a Marine who has fixed it to his rifle.
Reports regularly return about specific techniques that were taught in these programs and used in theater. These reports contribute to the evolution of the military martial arts. However little record exists of the use of the bayonet actually attached to a rifle in modern conflict.
Arguments
Leaders offer many reasons for not implementing the bayonet.
– “Professionals only kill with the bullet. Special Forces aren’t doing it and they’re out fighting all the time. If they’re not using it, then there’s probably a good reason. If you have to resort to hitting or stabbing someone, then you must have screwed up. Ever heard of something called a rifle? Why stick him when you can shoot him?”
– “It’s a safety thing. If you slip, then the guy in front of you could get run right through. Or if he gets blown up, then you’ve got a deadly projectile flying past your head and impaling the squad leader. And training with them is dangerous. Real knives, training knives, getting concussions from pugil sticks… just dangerous. I love my guys but they’d be completely irresponsible with them. I saw those idiots smashing helmets into their flak jackets last week. Someone would get hurt if we let them run wild with bayonets. They’re really only good for opening MREs and clearing ground.”
– “When was the last bayonet charge that you can remember? No one does that anymore. We’re not using spears and swords anymore. Besides, once you’ve stuck a bayonet in him, the rifle is useless and you’re standing there helpless.”
As apparently damning as these may be, there are even more heady concerns for military leaders. Add to this list the simple fact that distance is the ideal. If a warfighter can solve the problem as far from the forward edge as possible, then the loss of life on both sides is generally lower, the emotional cost is reduced, and order can be maintained with much less investment.
Even those who are not comfortable acknowledging it would like to see the cessation of close combat. The emotional cost of killing at different ranges was described in On Killing by Col Dave Grossman, US Army. One can scarcely get more intimate with the enemy than to be holding one end of a weapon that is buried in him.
A Mistake That Opens a Door
However, an example of what puts these all to rest took place in the Navy aircraft design. When missiles started showing up on jets, Navy professionals were convinced that the enemy would be engaged and killed far beyond dog-fight range. The result was that they did not give due attention to dog-fighting and did not even see the need for a machine gun on the F4 Phantom. Pilots caught in a dog fight with a MiG-17 were frustrated not to have this simple close-range weapon. A machine gun pod was attached where a bomb would normally go which solved the problem. All fighter aircraft designed since have returned to this simple self-defense: a machine gun.
A similar realization is upon the forces who operate on the ground.
Stay tuned for the conclusion, In Defense of the Bayonet – The Far Side.